1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23-81977, whereby appeal of the appellants against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sahiwal dated 30-4-1976, convicting the appellants under section 302, P.P.C. And sentencing all of them to life imprisonment for the murder of Muhammad Zafar, with fine of Rs,500 each or in default to suffer each further two months R.I., with a direction that the fine if realized be paid to the heirs of the deceased, was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2. ' According to the F.I.R. The prosecution story is that three days prior to the occurrence, Muhammad Tufail accused appellant played Radio in front of the `Khokha' of Abdul Rashid (PW-5), to which he objected. Both of them exchanged hot words to each other. On 27-6-1974 at about 12-noon time appellant No,1 again came to the Chowk and started radio with loud tune, Abdul Rashid again objected to it. Respondent No,1 abused him and left the place. After some time when Abdul Rashid (PW-5) alongwith his brother Muhammad Zafar (deceased) while going to their home when reached near the house of Muhammad Ismail, the appellants armed with Barchhis and their co- accused Murad armed with Dhang appeared and raised Lalkaras and surrounded the deceased.
3. Abdul Rashid (PW-5) raised hue and cry and ran towards his house. Muhammad Tufail appellant gave a Barchhi blows on the front of the neck of the deceased, Nazir and Inayat appellants delivered Barchhi blows on the left flank, left shoulder and left chest of the deceased. Murad acquitted co-accused hit the deceased on the left thigh with his Danda due to which the deceased fell on the ground. After commission of the offence the appellants alongwith Murad decamped from the spot. The deceased died on the spot. This occurrence was witnessed by Abdul Rashid P.W.5, Muhammad Latif PW.6, Mubarak P.W.7 and Fazal. The complainant Mubairak Ali father of the deceased went to the Police Station Saddar Okara, where he lodged the report on the same day at 2.30 p.m.. Which was recorded by Pirzada Shah Mehmood S.I. (PW.10).
4. ' The S.I. Visited the spot. He prepared the injury sheet and inquest report. He also collected blood- stained earth from the spot and secured it into a sealed parcel. He sent the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. All the three appellants alongwith Murad acquitted accused appeared before the S.I. With their respective weapons. Barchhis vide memo Exs.PF, PG, PH were recovered from the appellants respectively and Dang Ex.PJ was recovered from Murad acquitted accused.
5. ' Muhammad Tufail appellant No,1 and acquitted accused Murad also received injuries in this occurrence. The S.I. Pirzada Shah Mehmood (PW-10) prepared the injury statements Ex.PL of Murad and Ex. PM of Muhammad Tufail appellant and got them medically examined. Doctor Shabir Suleman (PW 1) M.O. Civil Hospital Okara conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of. Muhammad Zafar deceased and found six injuries on the dead body. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon and the death of the deceased occurred due to injuries Nos.1 and 6 which were grievous and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On the same day at 11.45 a.m. The said doctor examined Muhammad Tufail appellant who according to the doctor sustained two injuries on his person. Injury No,1 was kept under observation and injury No,2 was simple in nature. Both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. The said doctor also examined the acquitted accused Murad on the same day at 11.50 a.m. And found 3 injuries on his person. His injuries were simple in nature and were caused by Kandala.
6. ' The accused were challaned by the police More the Additional Sessions Judge, IVth Sahiwal for their trial. The accused, however, pleaded their innocence. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced 11 witnesses. After adducing evidence produced against the accused/appellants, the learned trial Judge accepted the motive of the occurrence, ocular account testified by Abdul Rashid (PW-5), Muhammad Latif (PW-6) and Mubarrak Ali (PW-7), the medical evidence corroborated by the prosecution story and recoveries of blood-stained Barchhis from the appellants, found them guilty of the offence, convicted them under section 302/34, P.P.C.
7. And sentenced them to life imprisonments with a fine of Rs,500 each to be paid to the heirs of the deceased if realized, or in default to suffer further two months' R.I. The learned trial Judge, however, gave the benefit of doubt to Murad accused who had delivered a Dang blow to the deceased and acquitted him of the charges of murder against him, vide judgment dated 30-4-1976.
8. ' Aggrieved from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No,599/1976 against their conviction and sentences before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. A learned Single Judge of High Court who heard the appeal of the appellants, dismissed the same on the following observations:- "In any case the ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the recoveries of blood-stained Barchhis.
9. Medical evidence also supports the prosecution version as to the manner in which the injuries were attributed to the assailants. The motive for the attack, also, stands established. It appears that there was some scuffle between the deceased and Abdul Rashid PW on the one side and Muhammad Tufail and Murad co-accused on the other, on account of the playing of radio by Muhammad Tufail in front of the shop of Abdul Rashid PW. In a rustic village society even a minor incident can provide a motive to a deadly attack. When Abdul Rashid PW and deceased were going to their house they were attacked by the appellants and Murad co-accused. Murad, however, has been given benefit of doubt, applying the rule of caution, as the deceased had no injury by a blunt weapon. A Dang is allegedly recovered from him. The argument that the same evidence having been disbelieved against Murad cannot be believed as against the appellant cannot be accepted. The fact is not that the ocular evidence has been rejected against Murad but Murad has been given, only, a benefit of doubt. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants proceed on their own facts and are clearly distinguishable. In fact no rule of universal application can be evolved in a criminal case and each case proceeds on its own facts. Learned counsel for the appellants has no doubt pointed out some discrepancies yet they are not material and will have no adverse bearing on the prosecution case. In view of the guidelines given by my Lord the Chief Justice of Pakistan in the case referred to above no importance can be attached to these discrepancies. The learned trial Court had the opportunity to watch the general demeanour of all these witnesses and has placed reliance on their testimony. I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned trial Court."
10. ' Now the appellants have come up in appeal through leave of this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the injuries sustained by Muhammad Tufail appellant and Murad the acquitted accused support their version. He also urged that the eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased as Abdul Rashid (PW-5) is the real brother and Mubarrak Ali (PW-7) is the father of the deceased. Abdul Latif (PW-6) is on inimical terms with the accused appellants. The learned counsel also ponited out that the actual independent eyewitness in this case was Fazal Din who was not produced by the prosecution and in the absence of an independent witness, the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses should not have been believed by the Courts below. We have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and scrutinized the record of the case. A perusal of the record will show that the occurrence is admitted by the appellants and the defence version that the deceased wag killed by Murad acquitted accused and Muhammad Tufail appellant in exercise of the right of self-defence by the spears supplied by one Muhammad Ismail does not stand to reason and does not affect the prosecution's case. In this case Mubarrak Ali the father of the deceased had lodged the F.I.R. Who may not be aware of the first incident in which Abdul Rashid (PW-5) and the deceased inflicted injuries to Murad acquitted accused and Muhammad Tufail appellant. There seems to be no improvement in the case from the prosecution side as the injuries received by Muhammad Tufail appellant and Murad the acquitted accused were fully explained. Abdul Rashid, Muhammad Latif and Mubarak are the eye-witnesses in this case and were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. However, Fazal Din was abandoned by the learned A.P.P. Being unnecessary. These eye-witnesses have clearly stated that on 27-6- 1974 at noon time the appellants armed with spears and Murad armed with Dhang made made an attack on Muhammad Zafar deceased and delivered effective and fatal blows to the deceased due to which he died on the spot. Whereas the Dhang blow of Murad acquitted accused on the deceased was missed and nit the ground. These witnesses have given the motive for this occurrence as that 3/4 days prior to this occurrence, in front of the shop of Abdul Rashid (PW-5)
11. Muhammad Tufail accused appellant was playing radio very loudly and on the objection of Abdul Rashid, both of them exchanged abuses with each other. On the day of occurrence Muhammad Tufail appellant again brought his radio and started playing with loud voice near the shop of Abdul Rashid (PW-5) which was again objected to by him and resulted in the said occurrence in which the appellants caused the death of the deceased. Mere relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve them when they have proved their presence at the time of occurrence. Muhammad Latif (PW-6) is also an eye-witness in this case and he is not related to the deceased party in any degree. He is a resident of Chak No,22/G.V. In addition to this all the injuries received by the deceased were caused by sharp-edged weapons and there is no doubt about them. The Barchhis recovered from the appellants were stained with human blood and the recovery memos. Were attested by Muhammad Sadiq P.W.4, Muhammad Latif PW.6 and Prizada Shah Mehmud Inspector PW.10 and are sufficient to corroborate the ocular account.
12. From the above it seems that the prosecution witnesses have substantially supported the prosecution story and corroborated the statements of each other on all material points. Therefore, under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the evidence produced by the prosecution is reliable and the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court were justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellants as the prosecution has succeeded in this case to prove the guilt against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt.
13. ' The result is that this appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly.